DEMETRIO JAUGAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

The matter before the Court is a motion for leave to file a second
motion for reconsideration which, in truth, is already a motion for
reconsideration because it prays “that the two resolutions of this
Honorable Court dated November 5 and December 2, 1968 be corrected and that the
petition for certiorari be given due course”.

On October 29, 1968
petitioner filed a petition for the review, by way of certiorari, of the
decision of the Court of Appeals in G. R. No. CA-02912-CR finding him guilty of
homicide, with two aggravating circumstances and one mi­tigating circumstance,
and sentencing him accordingly, and praying, as a consequence, that said case
“be ordered re­opened and that a new trial be granted with the end in view
of allowing the introduction of Annexes A,
B and C, as evidence, so that they could be considered by the court
before rendering a final judgment on the merits of the criminal
case”.  By our resolution of November 5, 1968 We
denied said petition “for being late”.  Petitioner’s counsel received notice of this
resolution by registered mail on November
11, 1968.  Ten (10) days thereafter, or more, specifically, on
November 21 he filed a motion
for reconsideration which we denied in our resolution of December
2, both dates of the year 1968. 
Petitioner received notice of this last resolution on December
6, 1968.  Eleven (11) days thereafter, or on December
17, 1968 he
filed the motion for leave etc. under
consideration.

Under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, the motion for
leave etc. was filed out of time.

On the question of
whether or not the petition for
certiorari was filed on time,
the record shows the follow­ing:

Petitioner received notice of the decision of the Court of
Appeals on June 20, 1968.  Therefore, the fifteen-day period for the
filing of a petition for certiorari by way of appeal to the Supreme Court, or
for the filing of a motion for
rehearing was to expire on July 5, 1968.  As petitioner was granted by the Court of
Appeals thirty days extension for the filing of a motion for reconsideration
and/or new trial, the period therefore to appeal by certiorari was extended up
to August 4, 1968.  He filed
his motion for reconsideration and/or new trial on July 23, 1968 –
admittedly within the extended period.

Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration and/or new trial mentioned above was denied by the Court of
Appeals in its resolution of August 6,
1968, notice of
which was received by petitioner on August 22, 1968. 
Consequently, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1, Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, he had fifteen days from August 23, 1968 (inclusive) within which to appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court
of Appeals.  Said period expired on
September 6, 1968.

On August 23, 1968 petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals
again a motion for permission to file a
second motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, which said Court denied in its resolution of September
3, 1968, notice of which was received by petitioner either on the 10th or 11th
of September of the same year.

The abovementioned motion
for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and/or new trial – contrary
to the belief apparently entertained by petitioner’s counsel – did not suspend
the running of the period of fifteen days provided for in Section 1 of Rule
45.  Neither, of course, did the
subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by him.  Consequently, when he filed his petition for
certiorari with Us on October 29, 1968, the period provided for in Section 1, Rule
45, had long expired.  This is the reason
why We denied
the same in our resolution of November
5, 1968.

WHEREFORE, petitioner’s
motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration dated December
16, 1968 is hereby denied.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.